#1 Simple Bitcoin Price History Chart (Since 2009)

Portfolio tracking...

Are there any websites where I can input my bitcoin (and altcoin) currency holdings portfolio or trade history and I can get a smooth realtime graph of total historical and current value?
submitted by mrredditor79 to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: Bitcoin top posts from 2018-04-16 to 2018-05-16 07:24 PDT

Period: 29.86 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 60667
Rate (per day) 33.49 2014.59
Unique Redditors 728 13668
Combined Score 403062 287813

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 23089 points, 2 submissions: jrs0080
    1. Whoever put this up deserves a medal (22960 points, 320 comments)
    2. It’s Official... 13th December is The Best Day to Own Bitcoin!!!! (129 points, 30 comments)
  2. 22608 points, 10 submissions: bitchari
    1. Value is always in the eyes of the beholder (10970 points, 554 comments)
    2. We did it!! BTC ✌️ (4328 points, 346 comments)
    3. Uncomfortable truths!! (3222 points, 471 comments)
    4. "rat poison" returns!! (1547 points, 239 comments)
    5. Really!! (806 points, 127 comments)
    6. A picture is worth a thousand words! Found this on Twitter (805 points, 88 comments)
    7. German Bank Allows Users To Transfer Loans Anywhere In The World Using Bitcoin "see no bank, hear no bank, speak no bank" is their motto (392 points, 30 comments)
    8. “We need to take a moment and respect this generation’s interest in this new instrument (bitcoin),” CFTC Chairman. https://www.ccn.com/we-need-to-respect-this-generations-interest-in-bitcoin-cftc-chairman/ (328 points, 28 comments)
    9. You may define what Bitcoin is to yourself. You may not define what Bitcoin is to others without their consent. https://t.co/6vVRhoVTZm (113 points, 18 comments)
    10. Bill Gates doesn't like bitcoin. Really?!! He did not believe in the internet either! (97 points, 47 comments)
  3. 14875 points, 2 submissions: ltc-
    1. What a time to be alive! (14748 points, 470 comments)
    2. I modified a thing. (127 points, 22 comments)
  4. 10913 points, 1 submission: InteractiveLedger
    1. This is NOT OK. Upvote for visibility (10913 points, 1557 comments)
  5. 10876 points, 1 submission: PineappleFund
    1. Farewell from the Pineapple Fund (10876 points, 611 comments)
  6. 10387 points, 1 submission: EMC2_trooper
    1. I see it every day. (10387 points, 296 comments)
  7. 9081 points, 1 submission: normcrypto
    1. You knew this was coming... one of my faves last year (9081 points, 128 comments)
  8. 8749 points, 4 submissions: StoneHammers
    1. exceedingly efficient (7945 points, 207 comments)
    2. As I was saying (423 points, 20 comments)
    3. Too Damn High (194 points, 56 comments)
    4. Dear Bitcoin ATM makers please disclose your fees in clear understandable language prominently on the face of your machines. (187 points, 53 comments)
  9. 7663 points, 1 submission: joe4c
    1. Sir this seat is reserved for people with disabilities... (7663 points, 526 comments)
  10. 6865 points, 1 submission: Dark_Dantex
    1. It’s over 9000!!!!!! (6865 points, 429 comments)
  11. 6741 points, 1 submission: Weaselbrott
    1. Everyone on Bitcoin right now waiting to press "submit" on their well-crafted 10K memes (6741 points, 134 comments)
  12. 6553 points, 1 submission: chickenmalaitikka
    1. Rekt (6553 points, 85 comments)
  13. 5352 points, 1 submission: LouisOfTokyo
    1. I took a trip with some friends to a sleepy rural town in Japan, hours outside of Tokyo. We entered a cafe and were surprised to see that they accepted bitcoin. Here is my friend buying a chocolate cake. (5352 points, 303 comments)
  14. 5340 points, 3 submissions: Pascalboyart
    1. Thanks a lot for your bitcoin donations on my street art piece in Paris, already 130$ received 🙏🙏🙏 (3909 points, 178 comments)
    2. Street art piece in Paris with a QR code for bitcoin donations (728 points, 63 comments)
    3. We did it ! Thanks to all the redditors, it came most from you guys 👏🙏🙏🙏 (703 points, 71 comments)
  15. 5118 points, 2 submissions: TipToeTiger
    1. Crypto Rider - A free game I made about racing on Bitcoin and other crypto's historical price graphs! (more info in comments) (5052 points, 309 comments)
    2. Thank You message to bitcoin from Crypto Rider team! (Message in comments) (66 points, 12 comments)
  16. 5021 points, 1 submission: UniqueUsername642
    1. This is Cryptocurrency (5021 points, 372 comments)
  17. 4820 points, 2 submissions: tinaclark90
    1. I've made some free Bitcoin Icons (4731 points, 246 comments)
    2. Very Soon in Vegas (89 points, 15 comments)
  18. 4558 points, 2 submissions: boobooyoudo
    1. Amazon filed a patent to de-anonymize Bitcoin transactions and sell the data to law enforcement (4501 points, 711 comments)
    2. Near Field Technology could help bring lightning Bitcoin payments to retail. (57 points, 7 comments)
  19. 4222 points, 1 submission: sparty_postgrad
    1. The answer on Jeopardy today! (4222 points, 174 comments)
  20. 4209 points, 2 submissions: installeris
    1. 17000000 Bitcoins Have Been Mined! 4 millions to go! Happy anniversary day! (3735 points, 271 comments)
    2. The Irony (474 points, 37 comments)
  21. 3850 points, 1 submission: SingularityNerd
    1. Hilarious satire protest outside Consensus, the website says Genesis Mining put it on. #bankersagainstbitcoin (3850 points, 183 comments)
  22. 3673 points, 1 submission: sebastianstan21
    1. Current scenario (3673 points, 130 comments)
  23. 3632 points, 1 submission: awice
    1. WOW, this just happened on Jeopardy! last night. (3632 points, 363 comments)
  24. 3630 points, 1 submission: -All-Day-
    1. Ayy lmao (3630 points, 60 comments)
  25. 3617 points, 1 submission: JJKirsch
    1. Fake or Fork (3617 points, 354 comments)
  26. 3435 points, 2 submissions: tedand
    1. CoinMarketCap should remove Bitcoin dot com website from Bitcoin's page (3135 points, 200 comments)
    2. Bitcoin.com is first result in Google for "buy Bitcoin", selling "Bitcoin Cash" instead (300 points, 168 comments)
  27. 3429 points, 1 submission: universaleric
    1. Sh..should we get the "it's over 9000" memes ready? (3429 points, 204 comments)
  28. 3404 points, 1 submission: eragmus
    1. Erik Voorhees: “Roger - please stop referencing me to back up your opinion that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. It isn't. Bitcoin is the chain originating from the genesis block with the highest accumulated proof of work. The Bitcoin Cash fork failed to gain majority, thus it is not Bitcoin.” (3404 points, 402 comments)
  29. 3354 points, 7 submissions: ayanamirs
    1. Satoshi Nakamoto about bitcoin.com (2332 points, 327 comments)
    2. Roger Ver is a well-known scammer. (451 points, 129 comments)
    3. Coinbase has become an unreliable and even dangerous service, subject to arbitrary, non-transparent actions as it merged with the US banking sector and started to provide information on its customers to the US government. It has become everything that Bitcoin was designed to stop - @Wikileaks (313 points, 145 comments)
    4. Electrum 3.1.3 release! (96 points, 24 comments)
    5. I'm so glad bitcoin don't have a central man on the top. (71 points, 23 comments)
    6. Fees are low, use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! (58 points, 7 comments)
    7. The segwit adoption doesn't increase anymore. We need to do something. (33 points, 33 comments)
  30. 2819 points, 4 submissions: Mikeross14
    1. Cracks me up everytime (2161 points, 70 comments)
    2. Baby Saver offers to buy this sub (270 points, 270 comments)
    3. Marvel referencing cryptocurrency in one of its latest comics! (261 points, 21 comments)
    4. You want to help Bitcoin but can't code? Do a simple thing then, call out all the scammers and call out everyone who supports these scammers. Make Crypto free from these scums. Simple. (127 points, 37 comments)
  31. 2795 points, 4 submissions: Fly115
    1. Bitcoin.com has fixed it's webpage after lawsuit (1642 points, 572 comments)
    2. Microsoft + Bitcoin Lightning Network. Decentralized Identity proof of concept to be shown off at Consensus 2018. Seems big (721 points, 104 comments)
    3. A major announcement at #consensus2018 that did not seem to get a lot of airtime @LedgerHQ announcing an institutional custody solution in partnership with @Nomura and @GABIjersey. Addresses a major issue for institutional investors (242 points, 16 comments)
    4. Segwit Adoption - Steady growth to 35% (190 points, 70 comments)
  32. 2590 points, 1 submission: dustincrypto
    1. Bitcoin going mainstream in Las Vegas (2590 points, 109 comments)
  33. 2567 points, 3 submissions: edlund10
    1. Nick Szabo retweeted: "⚠️ If you are new to #bitcoin then please be aware that bitcoin .com is a fraudulent website. ⚠️ This website is run by Roger Ver who is a known serial scammer. ⚠️ The current main scam is the promotion of #bcash which is a fake version of bitcoin." (1906 points, 302 comments)
    2. Exactly 5 years ago Wired wrote "The world’s most popular digital currency really is nothing more than an abstraction. So we’re destroying the private key used by our Bitcon wallet." The loss is currently worth $124,453.58 (568 points, 134 comments)
    3. Warren Buffet vs. Bitcoin, 5 years chart, logarithmic scale (93 points, 52 comments)
  34. 2556 points, 1 submission: SchnitzelBoss
    1. Coinmarket cap removed Bitcoin.com from Bitcoin's website list. (2556 points, 159 comments)
  35. 2549 points, 1 submission: bajanboost
    1. CEO of Binance actually gives a f***. This is the exact moment he was introduced to the Bermuda Shorts by the Bermuda Development Agency; A formal dress code in the country (2549 points, 125 comments)
  36. 2518 points, 2 submissions: Bitcoin_21
    1. WikiPedia's Bitcoin page removed the Bitcoin dot com explorer, because it misleads its users. (2083 points, 153 comments)
    2. Please report the bitcoin ,com wallet to the iOS app store for fraud. (435 points, 122 comments)
  37. 2403 points, 1 submission: TomasEddison
    1. Guy on CNBC says $100USD bill is used for far more illicit activity than bitcoin. (2403 points, 183 comments)
  38. 2316 points, 7 submissions: Suberg
    1. 600+ Bitcoin Users Seek Lawsuit Against Bitcoin.com & CEO Roger Ver for Fraud (1094 points, 298 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Lightning Network Matures With Record 2000 Nodes, $150K Capacity, 7000 active channels (500 points, 172 comments)
    3. Bitcoin.com Fraud Lawsuit Group Gaining Steam With Over 1000 Members (322 points, 184 comments)
    4. Tom Lee: Bitcoin Price Increase Coming After Consensus Conference (155 points, 46 comments)
    5. Russia's 'CIA' Memo Admits Telegram Was Blocked Because Crypto Is 'Uncontrollable' (151 points, 13 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Price Historically Surges With Consensus Conference, Data Shows (47 points, 26 comments)
    7. IMF's Lagarde: Bitcoin 'Could Have a Significant Impact on How We Save' (47 points, 11 comments)
  39. 2274 points, 9 submissions: TheGreatMuffin
    1. The CEO of Binance, a company with $200M yearly revenue, at a press conference (810 points, 103 comments)
    2. Goldman Sachs to Open a Bitcoin Trading Operation - NYTimes (498 points, 54 comments)
    3. Kraken's response to the NYAG enquiry (413 points, 117 comments)
    4. Jameson Lopp: "Today I've learned that a lot of data sources are incorrectly reporting the total bitcoin supply. We haven't actually hit 17M BTC yet; you can follow along in realtime at [link]" (141 points, 23 comments)
    5. Bitcoin was the 9th most viewed Wikipedia article in 2017, coming in just behind the entry for the United States. (h/t @lopp) (120 points, 18 comments)
    6. Samourai and goTenna Enable Bitcoin Transactions Without Internet Access (100 points, 16 comments)
    7. A German online bank uses Bitcoins to transfer loans (93 points, 35 comments)
    8. Huawei Is About to Give Chinese Users Easier Access to Bitcoin (62 points, 14 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Threat Model - extensive security review of possible threats to bitcoin as cryptocurrency (by JW Weatherman) (37 points, 11 comments)
  40. 2225 points, 1 submission: awesomedan77
    1. WARNING: HitBTC stole 5Btc deposit, even after I provided everything they asked for 2+ months! (2225 points, 486 comments)
  41. 2170 points, 1 submission: ronnnumber
    1. 45% of investors... (2170 points, 227 comments)
  42. 2041 points, 1 submission: YnotHaTony
    1. Truth about Bitcoin mining (2041 points, 136 comments)
  43. 2017 points, 9 submissions: Miladran
    1. Nasdaq is open to becoming cryptocurrency exchange, CEO says (966 points, 104 comments)
    2. BREAKING: Coinbase Just Bought One of Bitcoin's Biggest Startups (278 points, 103 comments)
    3. Bitcoin buy orders are >90% of the market for the first time since March 2017 (176 points, 28 comments)
    4. Telegram CEO Is Using Bitcoin to Help Bypass Russia's App Ban (173 points, 11 comments)
    5. Sell gold, buy bitcoin? The ultimate global safe haven debate has begun (128 points, 56 comments)
    6. Lambos are coming (117 points, 53 comments)
    7. Bitcoin gets boost from IMF head (71 points, 7 comments)
    8. Is PayPal driving people towards Bitcoin? (60 points, 83 comments)
    9. NASDAQ-Powered Cryptocurrency Exchange Platform to Launch in June (48 points, 9 comments)
  44. 1997 points, 1 submission: trainrekt23
    1. Found this today on the campus of my uni (1997 points, 225 comments)
  45. 1991 points, 1 submission: kynek99
    1. Here is the bitcoin.com owner who created Bitcoin Cash to scam people and show real Bitcoiners a middle finger. (1991 points, 408 comments)
  46. 1847 points, 1 submission: sha256art
    1. Fasten your seat belts (1847 points, 107 comments)
  47. 1822 points, 1 submission: 127fascination
    1. Australia Bans Cash For All Purchases Over $10,000 Starting July Of 2019 (1822 points, 531 comments)
  48. 1788 points, 5 submissions: coinmoon_com
    1. ‘Bitcoin’ was the 9th most read article on Wikipedia in 2017. Lets make it number 1 this year. Spread the word! (632 points, 35 comments)
    2. Bitcoin has worked non stop for 9 years. Without any days off, scheduled maintenance or severe issues. Let that sink in for a minute. (599 points, 226 comments)
    3. FORBES: Gold used to be money, and it was great money for its times. But Bitcoin's now the new flight capital. (286 points, 37 comments)
    4. 15 Claims Against Lightning, Answered (164 points, 12 comments)
    5. Bitcoin could replace cash in 10 years - Business Insider (107 points, 59 comments)
  49. 1694 points, 1 submission: BitMarKas
    1. New Ledger features! (1694 points, 42 comments)
  50. 1635 points, 6 submissions: _smudger_
    1. Today the 17th Million bitcoin will be mined (1070 points, 130 comments)
    2. Bitcoin to hit $50,000 by year-end, says BitMex CEO (158 points, 92 comments)
    3. Lightning + NFC? The New Plan to Bring Bitcoin to Retail (152 points, 45 comments)
    4. Vaultoro Becomes The First Exchange To Implement Bitcoin Lightning Network Payments (116 points, 6 comments)
    5. How to build your own portable plug-in Lightning node! (95 points, 5 comments)
    6. Bitcoin’s Recent Institutional Demand Is Unprecedented, Says Futures Market CEO (44 points, 6 comments)
  51. 1581 points, 1 submission: CoolStoryBroLol
    1. Bitcoin accepted at my dentist's office (1581 points, 210 comments)
  52. 1524 points, 1 submission: paintedfrog
    1. Found a helpful infographic. Could be handy to respond with this when people forget what Bitcoin is called... (1524 points, 294 comments)
  53. 1504 points, 1 submission: NikolaosKost
    1. Lawsuit from over 600 Bitcoin Users against Bitcoin.com and CEO Roger Ver (1504 points, 338 comments)
  54. 1497 points, 1 submission: 3hrdrive
    1. In Australia there is currently an investigation into banks and their practices, and the results are frightening (1497 points, 124 comments)
  55. 1423 points, 4 submissions: chek2fire
    1. Everyone must report this Bitcoin mobile wallet asap.Is a fraud (554 points, 174 comments)
    2. Roger Ver and Bitcoin.com do a social attacks to Bitcoin (506 points, 313 comments)
    3. Blockchain.info. 8 months and still no segwit support. They are more lazy than sub-saharan public sector (288 points, 58 comments)
    4. They said: "Segwit is not a scaling solution".... (75 points, 59 comments)
  56. 1420 points, 10 submissions: DesignerAccount
    1. Witness the future: Paying for coffee with LN in real life - Brisbane Airport (377 points, 144 comments)
    2. Bitcoin transaction fees in sat/b have not been so low since 2011!!! (173 points, 65 comments)
    3. PSA: Stop spelling the Bitcoin fraudulent site correctly - It only helps them as search engines pick it up. Use: bitcoin,com | bitcoin .com | bitcoin (.) com | bitcoindotcom | ... (153 points, 52 comments)
    4. "The bitlicense is a creature so foul, so cruel that not even Kraken possesses the courage or strength to face its nasty, big, pointy teeth." --- Kraken CEO: Exchange Won't Answer New York AG's Inquiry (141 points, 11 comments)
    5. Ready for work. (140 points, 69 comments)
    6. World Debt Hits Record $164 Trillion <-- That's WHY bitcoin. (133 points, 121 comments)
    7. Goldman Hires Head Cryptocurrency Trader (99 points, 4 comments)
    8. Chilean Anti-Monopoly Court Orders Banks To Re-Open Crypto Exchange’s Accounts (71 points, 3 comments)
    9. Hilarious: Lighting TESTNET app renamed Bitcoin Cash TESTNET!! (68 points, 23 comments)
    10. UNICEF Is Mining Crypto to Raise Funds for Children (65 points, 6 comments)
  57. 1381 points, 1 submission: girlpearl
    1. At the Gramatik show last night in Boston (1381 points, 63 comments)
  58. 1358 points, 3 submissions: zappadoing
    1. someone put a BTC-symbol on to the swiss federal bank! (1212 points, 84 comments)
    2. Bitcoin boosted as IMF boss Christine Lagarde praises cryptocurrency and suggests it could transform the way people save and invest (101 points, 8 comments)
    3. The Zurich bakery where you can't pay with cash (but bitcoins are fine) (45 points, 9 comments)
  59. 1337 points, 8 submissions: frankreddit5
    1. My daughter just informed me that someone told her "#Bitcoin is a worthless scheme" & that the US dollar has, quote, "one 'brick' of gold in a vault for every dollar there is."..There's so many things wrong with both of these statements that all I can do is sit here and facepalm (582 points, 184 comments)
    2. Here's my Bitcoin Starry Night art on Canvas! (250 points, 26 comments)
    3. I think it turned out sick! (whitepaper on metal) (122 points, 22 comments)
    4. It's funny to me when people say that #Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme or a bubble. The real ponzi scheme is the money system created by the Federal Reserve. And that's the real bubble, too. It's time for monetary reform; it's time for people to take back what is theirs. #BuyBitcoin (118 points, 39 comments)
    5. Argentina raises interest rates to 40% (80 points, 52 comments)
    6. my Satoshi Whitepaper art on 3/4" thick birch wood, treated with a high-gloss coating. (73 points, 16 comments)
    7. my Bitcoin Phoenix artwork (on metal) (70 points, 12 comments)
    8. my Bitcoin Astronaut art presented on a metal panel. It looks almost like an LCD TV in person! Image in comments. (42 points, 9 comments)
  60. 1200 points, 4 submissions: hodlerenfin
    1. Starting tomorrow Monday April 23, 2018 I will ask everywhere I spend my fiat, if they take Bitcoin even if I know they don’t. (609 points, 234 comments)
    2. Sad day today will be the last day we’ll see bitcoin below 9k.🙃 (275 points, 170 comments)
    3. Charlie Shrem on Twitter (162 points, 56 comments)
    4. I think at least everyday, wherever we spend fiat we should ask if they take Bitcoin. Even if we know they don’t. (154 points, 60 comments)
  61. 1196 points, 5 submissions: LegendsRoom
    1. Bitcoin dethroning Gold as a store of value. (349 points, 116 comments)
    2. Remember! with Banks, "only deposit what you can afford to lose!" (287 points, 121 comments)
    3. Remember! with Banks, "only deposit what you can afford to lose!" (287 points, 130 comments)
    4. Banking panic and chaos in UK, as customers locked out of accounts for 5 days running.. (155 points, 44 comments)
    5. UK Bank crippled, as customers panic, accounts emptied. (118 points, 41 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. TheBoyChris (2416 points, 4 comments)
  2. HODLTID (1954 points, 6 comments)
  3. Marcion_Sinope (1679 points, 303 comments)
  4. CONTROLurKEYS (1626 points, 204 comments)
  5. SuperGoxxer (1542 points, 284 comments)
  6. gonzobon (1428 points, 41 comments)
  7. technicallycorrect2 (1322 points, 29 comments)
  8. gbitg (1314 points, 4 comments)
  9. Bipolar_Chihuahua (1279 points, 3 comments)
  10. conv3rsion (1275 points, 1 comment)
  11. GolferRama (1167 points, 164 comments)
  12. HeyZeusChrist (1098 points, 51 comments)
  13. BCashBCashBTrash (1094 points, 381 comments)
  14. WhyDontYouTryIt (1019 points, 401 comments)
  15. jagan1355 (1016 points, 7 comments)
  16. HelloImRich (973 points, 50 comments)
  17. TheGreatMuffin (955 points, 141 comments)
  18. LegendsRoom (906 points, 59 comments)
  19. Kalin101 (859 points, 59 comments)
  20. Hanspanzer (845 points, 317 comments)
  21. TipToeTiger (797 points, 57 comments)
  22. themonkier (782 points, 16 comments)
  23. ducksauce88 (779 points, 179 comments)
  24. EMC2_trooper (762 points, 23 comments)
  25. Cryptolution (756 points, 223 comments)
  26. Timeforadrinkorthree (751 points, 3 comments)
  27. tranceology3 (750 points, 132 comments)
  28. biologischeavocado (741 points, 52 comments)
  29. MuD_D (740 points, 1 comment)
  30. BitcoinAlways (732 points, 286 comments)
  31. Explodicle (716 points, 246 comments)
  32. fenstabeemie (715 points, 1 comment)
  33. harreh (709 points, 1 comment)
  34. BashCo (669 points, 81 comments)
  35. zomgitsduke (654 points, 92 comments)
  36. bluethunder1985 (643 points, 124 comments)
  37. dontshillmexrp (643 points, 3 comments)
  38. jakesonwu (641 points, 90 comments)
  39. bitsteiner (639 points, 148 comments)
  40. eintnohick (627 points, 4 comments)
  41. devonthed00d (624 points, 8 comments)
  42. bitmaincash (623 points, 114 comments)
  43. fomotheclown (623 points, 114 comments)
  44. Black_RL (620 points, 15 comments)
  45. castorfromtheva (619 points, 24 comments)
  46. hsjoberg (612 points, 18 comments)
  47. pepe_le_shoe (602 points, 196 comments)
  48. a33b (602 points, 1 comment)
  49. inchhigh314 (597 points, 28 comments)
  50. Bitcoin_21 (577 points, 100 comments)
  51. Cykablast3r (571 points, 10 comments)
  52. bitusher (567 points, 87 comments)
  53. mustbemoney (564 points, 63 comments)
  54. typtyphus (562 points, 105 comments)
  55. gta3uzi (556 points, 145 comments)
  56. StopAndDecrypt (544 points, 80 comments)
  57. bossman-CT (542 points, 1 comment)
  58. IceColdInferno (534 points, 1 comment)
  59. outofofficeagain (532 points, 85 comments)
  60. fruitlessbanana (531 points, 9 comments)
  61. harrapino (526 points, 1 comment)
  62. suninabox (522 points, 159 comments)
  63. NimbleBodhi (511 points, 27 comments)
  64. pilotavery (508 points, 172 comments)
  65. Let_It_Steep (508 points, 5 comments)
  66. DeucesCracked (504 points, 71 comments)
  67. SpoekplumpeN (502 points, 142 comments)
  68. MrRGnome (498 points, 68 comments)
  69. Kanye_B_redpillin (497 points, 9 comments)
  70. robinwindy (495 points, 259 comments)
  71. absurdparadox (485 points, 8 comments)
  72. Iruwen (469 points, 57 comments)
  73. Bitcoin_Acolyte (459 points, 32 comments)
  74. ToddVonToddson (458 points, 1 comment)
  75. crptdv (450 points, 10 comments)
  76. djLyfeAlert (447 points, 83 comments)
  77. BucketSnail (443 points, 1 comment)
  78. BenTG (435 points, 5 comments)
  79. Mikeross14 (431 points, 39 comments)
  80. Utoko (429 points, 112 comments)
  81. LouisOfTokyo (428 points, 13 comments)
  82. pwuille (418 points, 17 comments)
  83. DartmouthBG (416 points, 26 comments)
  84. Natanael_L (411 points, 23 comments)
  85. flipsfordayz (410 points, 11 comments)
  86. raumi75 (408 points, 25 comments)
  87. boxhit (402 points, 27 comments)
  88. bluepuma90 (400 points, 3 comments)
  89. StoneHammers (391 points, 35 comments)
  90. AussieBitcoiner (390 points, 28 comments)
  91. TheRedStoner (385 points, 36 comments)
  92. 127fascination (384 points, 5 comments)
  93. PineappleFund (383 points, 4 comments)
  94. The-Physicist (382 points, 153 comments)
  95. BcashLoL (382 points, 137 comments)
  96. ketefocko (379 points, 1 comment)
  97. ThisIsABeginning (376 points, 22 comments)
  98. randiwulf (375 points, 6 comments)
  99. SpaceDuckTech (374 points, 66 comments)
  100. cdecker (373 points, 39 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Whoever put this up deserves a medal by jrs0080 (22960 points, 320 comments)
  2. What a time to be alive! by ltc- (14748 points, 470 comments)
  3. Value is always in the eyes of the beholder by bitchari (10970 points, 554 comments)
  4. This is NOT OK. Upvote for visibility by InteractiveLedger (10913 points, 1557 comments)
  5. Farewell from the Pineapple Fund by PineappleFund (10876 points, 611 comments)
  6. I see it every day. by EMC2_trooper (10387 points, 296 comments)
  7. You knew this was coming... one of my faves last year by normcrypto (9081 points, 128 comments)
  8. exceedingly efficient by StoneHammers (7945 points, 207 comments)
  9. Sir this seat is reserved for people with disabilities... by joe4c (7663 points, 526 comments)
  10. It’s over 9000!!!!!! by Dark_Dantex (6865 points, 429 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 2313 points: TheBoyChris's comment in This is NOT OK. Upvote for visibility
  2. 1951 points: HODLTID's comment in Whoever put this up deserves a medal
  3. 1309 points: gbitg's comment in Value is always in the eyes of the beholder
  4. 1275 points: conv3rsion's comment in Farewell from the Pineapple Fund
  5. 1220 points: technicallycorrect2's comment in Amazon filed a patent to de-anonymize Bitcoin transactions and sell the data to law enforcement
  6. 1219 points: Bipolar_Chihuahua's comment in This is NOT OK. Upvote for visibility
  7. 1014 points: gonzobon's comment in exceedingly efficient
  8. 987 points: jagan1355's comment in This is NOT OK. Upvote for visibility
  9. 740 points: MuD_D's comment in The answer on Jeopardy today!
  10. 715 points: fenstabeemie's comment in Truth about Bitcoin mining
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

I need your feedback for my new coin-portfolio tracker app “coinwatch”

Hello All,
I am enthusiastic about crypto world and also coding. I am just a beginner and I try my best to construct something better. Please share your comments and feedback then I will try best to implement your feedbacks into the app as well;
Coinwatch is a mobile application for iOS and Android.
Main features: • Create your watchlist • Watch them in realtime • Create your portfolio and watch portfolio value live with a doughnut chart to see distribution of your portfolio • Graphs up to 365 days for every coin , with min&max&Current situation line. • List exchanges for every coin they are listed on
iOS Appstore Link:IOS Link
Android Google Play Link :Playstore Link
submitted by kerempi to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The Five Most Important Graphs in Bitcoin Visual Basic .NET  Real Time Chart Graph Potentiometer ... Real Time PCR - Interpretation of the amplification plot ... How to Track Real-time Bitcoin price using python - YouTube Bitcoin 4 Dimensional Chart (Time, BTC/USD, BTC/Gold, and BTC/SPX)

Bitcoin Ticker - Tick by tick, real time updates. All data is indicative. Options Last Updated: seconds : Time between graph updates : ms: Play sound on each trade . Round Bids/Asks to 0.500 . Animate Depth Movements . Highlight BTC bids/asks above : Alert if price falls below: Alert if price climbs above: Alert if price change +/- : Sound Alert . Desktop Alert . Show Personalized Content ... Bitcoin price correlation to other assets still undefined . BTC Historical Prices. Feb. 04 2021 Mar. 05 2021. Download Reset. Loading.. Date Open Close Daily High Daily Low; Price change over sele Bitcoin again demonstrated its value as money without central control. Soon after the Greek crisis, China began to devalue the Yuan. As reported at the time, Chinese savers turned to Bitcoin to protect their accumulated wealth. 2015 Bitcoin chart by Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge. A current positive influencer of Bitcoin price, or at least perception, is the ">Argentinian situation. Argentina’s ... Bitcoin - Euro Realtime: 10.958,7100 (0,4746%) Vortag: 10.906,9404. Vortag. Limit 1: Limit 2: Automatisch Scrollen. Kommentare. Disqus ausblenden. Für den Live-Chat können Sie sich mit ... Bitcoin USD price, real-time (live) charts, bitcoin news and videos. Learn about BTC value, bitcoin cryptocurrency, crypto trading, and more.

[index] [7801] [13414] [25572] [41197] [51118] [15163] [17137] [7526] [27315] [3486]

The Five Most Important Graphs in Bitcoin

Hi! Great that you're watching a new video! In this video I'll discuss two of the most underestimated topics in cryptoland. In this video, we'll discuss the difference between price and value. And ... This tutorial will discuss the basics of how to interpret an amplification plot of real time PCR. introduction Real Time PCR: http://youtu.be/EaGH1eKfvC0 Previous VB .Net Project (see this first) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6b_K0ou6dA Build desktop applications to monitor & receive serial data from Ardu... We explore a 4-dimensional Bitcoin chart where we plot the price of BTC against time, the valuation with respect to the S&P 500, and the valuation with respect to gold (color-coded). Learn how to connect realtime data to Plot.ly with the Firebase database and Angular 4 on the frontend. In this episode, I build three different graphs and c...

#